Offline GoldCashew

  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« on: July 13, 2022, 10:49:24 PM »
Margaret Hamilton is known as one of the pioneering software programmers that supported the Apollo program to the Moon.

There is an iconic picture of Margaret standing next to 5 feet of stacked programming code binders. (see attached TODAY interview).

For TFES space travel conspiracy believers, do you believe that Margaret:

- was IN on the hoax and was writing bogus software that really did nothing? And, so in the interview, she is lying?
- was IN on the hoax and was writing software that took Lunar Module and Lunar Lander on a trajectory but not to the Moon (e.g. secretly ditching in the Ocean)? And, so in the interview she is lying?
- was NOT IN on the hoax and thought she was writing software programming to get Apollo to the Moon but is mistaken?

There are various aspects to the space travel conspiracy that I am curious to understand how space travel conspiracy believers believe they were pulled off.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10173
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2022, 06:23:58 AM »
I don't see why she couldn't have been writing software for something. She clearly said at about 2:06 that she was writing Moon landing simulation software for the control panels and dashboards seen and was concerned about what might happen if her buggy software was put in a real space craft and taken to the Moon.

NASA clearly spent a lot of money and focus on simulation software, to the point that Mission Control couldn't separate the training from the real mission. In the book Failure Is Not an Option, Apollo Flight Director Gene Kranz made the following statements:

  “ In the late 1960's our simulation technology had progressed to the point where it became virtually impossible to separate the training from actual missions. The simulations became full dress rehearsals for the missions down to the smallest detail. The simulation tested out the crew's and controller's responses to normal and emergency conditions. It checked out the exact flight plan, mission rules, and procedures that the crew and controllers would use for a later flight. ”

  “ The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real mission. ”

It seems that not even the people pushing buttons and reading diagnostics at the mission control center had to be 'in on it'.

Offline GoldCashew

  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2022, 10:59:23 AM »
I don't see why she couldn't have been writing software for something. She clearly said at about 2:06 that she was writing Moon landing simulation software for the control panels and dashboards seen and was concerned about what might happen if her buggy software was put in a real space craft and taken to the Moon.

NASA clearly spent a lot of money and focus on simulation software, to the point that Mission Control couldn't separate the training from the real mission. In the book Failure Is Not an Option, Apollo Flight Director Gene Kranz made the following statements:

  “ In the late 1960's our simulation technology had progressed to the point where it became virtually impossible to separate the training from actual missions. The simulations became full dress rehearsals for the missions down to the smallest detail. The simulation tested out the crew's and controller's responses to normal and emergency conditions. It checked out the exact flight plan, mission rules, and procedures that the crew and controllers would use for a later flight. ”

  “ The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real mission. ”

It seems that not even the people pushing buttons and reading diagnostics at the mission control center had to be 'in on it'.


1) Apollo 8 experienced a Program 01 fault during it's actual flight to and around the Moon. So, certain NASA operatives would have secretely created / faked the fault along with a faked flight with faked weightlessness video to make it look like something was actually happening? And Margaret and rest of MIT source code team would have been mistaken into thinking it was an actual flight to the Moon?

2) Apollo 11 experienced a Program 1202 fault as the lunar module was decending to the surface of the Moon. So, Buzz and Neil, along with specific NASA operatives, faked the fault code? And, Margaret and her MIT source code team were mistaken into thinking it was all real?

3) If you believe NASA can't be trusted and lie, and you don't trust photos or videos from NASA, why include a quoted statement from Flight Director Gene Kranz from NASA? Why would you trust what someone from NASA said?
« Last Edit: July 14, 2022, 11:07:27 AM by GoldCashew »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10173
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2022, 12:32:54 PM »
1) Apollo 8 experienced a Program 01 fault during it's actual flight to and around the Moon. So, certain NASA operatives would have secretely created / faked the fault along with a faked flight with faked weightlessness video to make it look like something was actually happening? And Margaret and rest of MIT source code team would have been mistaken into thinking it was an actual flight to the Moon?

The error doesn't need to be entirely fake. She said that she was programming simulation software and this is where she saw the error. If they were using the simulation software in the full dress rehearsal that they were passing off as a real mission, they could have gotten the error.

Quote from: GoldCashew
2) Apollo 11 experienced a Program 1202 fault as the lunar module was decending to the surface of the Moon. So, Buzz and Neil, along with specific NASA operatives, faked the fault code? And, Margaret and her MIT source code team were mistaken into thinking it was all real?

Again, no. She had suggested that the errors could occur in her simulation software. If they were using that software in the rehearsal they were passing off as real then they could have gotten the error.

Quote from: GoldCashew
3) If you believe NASA can't be trusted and lie, and you don't trust photos or videos from NASA, why include a quoted statement from Flight Director Gene Kranz from NASA? Why would you trust what someone from NASA said?

We don't know how much of it is a lie, correct. But the statements regarding heavy use of simulation software would help reduce and compartmentalize how many people would need to be "in on it" and explains why the errors were seen on a false mission.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2022, 12:37:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline GoldCashew

  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2022, 05:47:28 PM »
1) Apollo 8 experienced a Program 01 fault during it's actual flight to and around the Moon. So, certain NASA operatives would have secretely created / faked the fault along with a faked flight with faked weightlessness video to make it look like something was actually happening? And Margaret and rest of MIT source code team would have been mistaken into thinking it was an actual flight to the Moon?

The error doesn't need to be entirely fake. She said that she was programming simulation software and this is where she saw the error. If they were using the simulation software in the full dress rehearsal that they were passing off as a real mission, they could have gotten the error.

Quote from: GoldCashew
2) Apollo 11 experienced a Program 1202 fault as the lunar module was decending to the surface of the Moon. So, Buzz and Neil, along with specific NASA operatives, faked the fault code? And, Margaret and her MIT source code team were mistaken into thinking it was all real?

Again, no. She had suggested that the errors could occur in her simulation software. If they were using that software in the rehearsal they were passing off as real then they could have gotten the error.

Quote from: GoldCashew
3) If you believe NASA can't be trusted and lie, and you don't trust photos or videos from NASA, why include a quoted statement from Flight Director Gene Kranz from NASA? Why would you trust what someone from NASA said?

We don't know how much of it is a lie, correct. But the statements regarding heavy use of simulation software would help reduce and compartmentalize how many people would need to be "in on it" and explains why the errors were seen on a false mission.


Thanks for your above reply's.

1) Do you believe that the MIT coders were part of the "compartmentalized" group that knew it was part of an SCC (Source Coding Conspiracy) to support the overall space travel conspiracy? Or, do you believe they were outside of the "compartmentalized" group of people that really know what was going on?

2) Which functional teams or branches of teams at NASA do you believe are aware of the space travel conspiracy and therefore "in on it"? Does it include Flight Director's (e.g. such as Gene Kranz and his team)?

3) Whom at NASA do you believe creates and plans out the fake space travel agenda's and then rolls it out to the masses and the media so that they can report it as new news? Do you believe NASA has a dedicated team of Marketing folks that are "compartmentalized" from the rest of NASA and "in on it" and whose job it is to create a steady stream of fake space travel agenda's and then work with the people at NASA that think it's all real to manage the development tasks to perpetuate the fakery? There would need to be some type of dedicated group of people that regularly and secretively meet and plan out the next fake space travel agenda to be rolled out to the masses in a carefully coordinated fashion.

4) If "we" don't know how much of it is a lie, how are you certain or confident that any of it is a lie? Might you be mistaken?

     
« Last Edit: July 14, 2022, 05:54:12 PM by GoldCashew »

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2024
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2022, 07:46:03 PM »


4) If "we" don't know how much of it is a lie, how are you certain or confident that any of it is a lie? Might you be mistaken?

   
While acknowledging the chance for always being mistaken, I am fairly certain and confident the government lies all the time and the media is complicit.
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

Offline GoldCashew

  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2022, 01:35:20 AM »


4) If "we" don't know how much of it is a lie, how are you certain or confident that any of it is a lie? Might you be mistaken?

   
While acknowledging the chance for always being mistaken, I am fairly certain and confident the government lies all the time and the media is complicit.


Regarding the Apollo program, what are some examples of specific lies from NASA (along with your research or your evidence that proves these as lies) that make you confident that the Earth is flat and that there is a space travel conspiracy?

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 1264
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2022, 01:48:26 AM »
.. and the media is complicit.
The media are certainly not complicit with the government.  The media has only one goal, the sell their 'content'.  They don't need to be complicit with anyone, except their chosen audience, to do that.  They report what they believe their audience wants to hear.  Caveat Emptor has its truest meaning in consuming media.
Quote from: Ironic Pete
I DO NOT NEED DATA, I'M PRETTY SURE I'M RIGHT!!!!

You think something is true, and that's good enough for you.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2024
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2022, 10:52:52 AM »
.. and the media is complicit.
The media are certainly not complicit with the government.  The media has only one goal, the sell their 'content'.  They don't need to be complicit with anyone, except their chosen audience, to do that.  They report what they believe their audience wants to hear.  Caveat Emptor has its truest meaning in consuming media.
So the media was correct regarding WMD and correct regarding the timing of WTC 7 and correct on the existence of Santa Claus.

Thanks for letting us know!
« Last Edit: July 18, 2022, 10:55:13 AM by Action80 »
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 1274
  • "Let's go Brandon ! I agree" >Your President<
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2022, 06:48:58 PM »
easy to fool that one.

give it super thrust going thru the van halen tunes on acid.
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Offline GoldCashew

  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2022, 12:36:13 AM »
.. and the media is complicit.
The media are certainly not complicit with the government.  The media has only one goal, the sell their 'content'.  They don't need to be complicit with anyone, except their chosen audience, to do that.  They report what they believe their audience wants to hear.  Caveat Emptor has its truest meaning in consuming media.
So the media was correct regarding WMD and correct regarding the timing of WTC 7 and correct on the existence of Santa Claus.

Thanks for letting us know!


In your earlier comment, I agree with you that the government lies and that the media also lies (although I would disagree with "ALL the time").

Specific to the Mercury and Apollo space programs, what are several examples of lies that NASA told that support your belief that space travel is a conspiracy and what research have you done to conclude your findings?   

Also, as part of the X-planes (Experimental) testing program in the 1950's and 1960's, there was the X-15 hypersonic aircraft sponsored and used by NASA that exceeded 4,000 miles per hour and set various speed and altitude records. Since you believe that governments / government agencies lie all the time, do you believe that the X-15 never existed and/or that such speeds and altitude records weren't actually achieved? 

« Last Edit: July 19, 2022, 12:48:59 AM by GoldCashew »

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2022, 09:56:05 PM »
If Elon Musk and Spacex engineers meet with NASA managers and engineers, does anyone in that room know the earth is actually flat and space travel is a hoax?

I grew up at Edwards Air Force Base and Lancaster CA. My neighbors and classmate's parents were aerospace people. Col Knight, X-15 pilot lived on my street and his daughter was in my class. My sister had class with Chuck Yeager's kid. My brother's girlfriend's father was NASA test pilot on lifting body. Two doors down was an engineer on the Gemini program. Around the corner, Kirk Long's dad worked at the rocket test site, he brought us a bottle of liquid nitrogen to mess with. Neil Armstrong spoke at a Futire Scientists of America meeting in high school. He was learning to land the lunar module on a captive test rig. I was in Aerospace Explorer post, we got tours of everything from Goldstone to Pt Mugu (Navy research base, they had a flight simulator program run by a computer filling a large room, it was crude). My girlfriend's father worked at NASA and so did she as summer intern in college. I interned at the AFFTC data processing center on testing F-15.

All of which is mostly about airplanes, except ...

I asked the X-15 pilot if he saw the curve of the earth, he said that is the first thing people ask, and yes, he did. Out a window that is not round, is flat, and shows no distortion when looked through on the ground - saw it at airshows and open house, they let you get within a few feet.

Astronaut training and X-15 were there, those were space guys where FE invalidates their world. In reality, the two worlds had overlap and people moved between them. Their calculations and observations were connected.And all of them believed the earth is round, and none ever discovered an observation or calculation that did not match reality and other known facts.

Or maybe they are lying? Thousands of engineers with crew cuts and plastic pocket protectors and no conceivable acting skills pulled it off without anyone ever getting drunk and spilling the beans? Or did they have calculations and instruments that matched RE theory and observations and yet they were all wrong and no one noticed? Perhaps most are just incompetently stupid at math and science and a few have been bought of or coerced into becoming great actors and incredibly effective conspirators?

Would love to hear the details. Without details, a conspiracy can be both large enough to do an amazing thing and small enough not to be detected. Any actual description of who knows and who doesn't will be ridiculous ion its face.

So hoax believer, describe how a small number of people can maintain a hoax containing space agencies from multiple countries, Spacex, astronomers, William Shatner, Elon Musk, GPS companies. US Space Force, etc. WHo among them knows, Who is fooled, who is acting. Something better than "They" just do it. If you don't know the details from evidence, how did you figure it out other than "It must be a hoax because the earth is flat." If you don't start with "the earth is flat" as a given, what reason do you have to think this huge group of people is a hoax.

I lived with them for 20 years. They think the earth is round and they are not good actors. There work is consistent with itself, observations, and gps works.

I really want to hear some specifics on the boundaries of the conspiracy.
"Electromagnetic Acceleration" sounds so much more sciency than "bendy light".

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 1274
  • "Let's go Brandon ! I agree" >Your President<
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2022, 01:56:05 AM »
I know pilots flying 14 hr flights and never nose the plane down to make up for some fake curvature. The cool aid is strong and so are paychecks.
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 1264
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2022, 02:48:40 AM »
So the media was correct regarding WMD and correct regarding the timing of WTC 7 and correct on the existence of Santa Claus.

Thanks for letting us know!
There must be something wrong with you.  That is not what I said and for the life of me I can't see how you could possibly draw that conclusion.  I must have entered the fucking twilight zone...
Quote from: Ironic Pete
I DO NOT NEED DATA, I'M PRETTY SURE I'M RIGHT!!!!

You think something is true, and that's good enough for you.

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 1264
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2022, 02:51:39 AM »
I know pilots flying 14 hr flights and never nose the plane down to make up for some fake curvature. The cool aid is strong and so are paychecks.
No you fucking don't.  Learn how instrumentation on aircraft works and what it means to fly a level flight on the Real Earth before you use complete shiet like this to try to disprove anything.  The only thing that exceeds your craziness is your ignorance.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2022, 02:53:16 AM by BillO »
Quote from: Ironic Pete
I DO NOT NEED DATA, I'M PRETTY SURE I'M RIGHT!!!!

You think something is true, and that's good enough for you.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 756
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2022, 09:57:43 AM »
I know pilots flying 14 hr flights and never nose the plane down to make up for some fake curvature. The cool aid is strong and so are paychecks.

Maths is your friend.

In circular motion, acceleration equals the square of the velocity divided by the radius.

So let’s take an airliner travelling at, say, 500 mph.

500mph = 224m/s
224 x 224 = 50,176

The mean radius of the earth is about 6,371,000 metres, plus we should add a bit more, say 10,000m or so, to account for the altitude - 6,381,000m

So the centripetal acceleration required to move our airliner around the circle is:

50,176 / 6,381,000 = 0.00786 ms-2


In level flight the aircraft is experiencing a weight force, balanced by lift, of 9.81 ms-2 multiplied by its mass. In order to fly in a circle, the pilot would have to ‘push’ 0.00786 off of 9.81, an imperceptible amount. Indeed, an amount so small it is less than the amount by which g itself varies around the world.

In order to require a substantial ‘push’, the aircraft would need to go much, much faster. Indeed, if you go up to about 18000mph, you find you would need to ‘push’ to zero g, which is why objects in orbit travel at around that speed (depending on their orbital distance), and why astronauts flout around when in orbit.

Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2022, 12:24:10 PM »
I know pilots flying 14 hr flights and never nose the plane down to make up for some fake curvature.
Inane comments like this don't really advance the concept of Flat Earth, and the fact that you seem to "know pilots" compounds the apparent ignorance. 

Further to the maths and all that others have mentioned, pilots flying "14 hour flight" don't actually push, pull or even steer anything from shortly after take-off until approaching to land; its all done by the autopilot.  The Altitude Hold function of this is accomplished by inputs from an air-data computer (ADC) which, in turn, receives an input of ambient atmospheric pressure from sensors on the side of the fuselage.  All commercial flight above Flight Level 290 (approximately 29000 feet) has to be done by aircraft certified to something called Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (VRSM), which means that the aircraft's altimeters have to be calibrated to very high standards.  Aircraft operating in VRSM may only be separated from other traffic vertically (height) by only 1000 feet, so variations of more than 300 feet are illegal.  (Just think about that for a second; they are 8 miles above the earth, and keeping height +/- 100 yards, purely on air pressure).  So as the plane flies along it varies up or down by a couple of feet; if it descends, the pressure rises, ADC tells the autopilot, autopilot trims the nose up a little, and so on.  Just the same way the Course Hold function is monitoring the heading to the next waypoint; plane veers slightly left or right, autopilot sends appropriate inputs to the lateral control system.  Just the same way that your car's Cruise control is constantly measuring velocity and constantly tweaking the amount of gas put out by the fuel injection system. 

Even if the aircraft was being flown manually, the pilot would be constantly adjusting up, down, left, right for the same reason, but just not as efficiently.  If you think that the pilot could identify which bit of "push" is for curvature from which bit is due to turbulence, you are demonstrating that you just can't conceive how big the Earth is, and how small you are. 

So there is no "push" to accommodate curvature; its constantly pushing, pulling, turning to achieve the altitude and heading demanded by the pilot.  And, of course, it would do it exactly the same if the Earth was flat, or indeed a Paralloid Tetrahedron.  (Don't Google that, I just made it up).

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 440
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2022, 01:46:04 PM »
I'm hesitant to believe that no instruments take into account Earth's curvature.  We're talking many thousands of feet of drop per hour.   

Gravity, air pressure, etc I think are dwarfed by the effects of thousands of pounds of lift generated by these planes.

Kind of how a kite is not affected by gravity etc... At least on windy days.
From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2022, 03:30:18 PM »
I'm hesitant to believe that no instruments take into account Earth's curvature.  We're talking many thousands of feet of drop per hour.   

Gravity, air pressure, etc I think are dwarfed by the effects of thousands of pounds of lift generated by these planes.

Kind of how a kite is not affected by gravity etc... At least on windy days.
I'm an aircraft engineer, and I just explained how it works.  But you think its not affected by gravity, like a kite. 

I see. 

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 756
    • View Profile
Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2022, 09:47:26 PM »
I'm hesitant to believe that no instruments take into account Earth's curvature.  We're talking many thousands of feet of drop per hour.   

Gravity, air pressure, etc I think are dwarfed by the effects of thousands of pounds of lift generated by these planes.

Kind of how a kite is not affected by gravity etc... At least on windy days.

I just explained how inconsequential the curvature is on the immediate ‘here and now’ of an aircraft. The amount of ‘nose down’ control input required to remain at a constant altitude is absolutely tiny - dwarfed by far larger influences such as turbulence, changes in pressure, and shifts in c of g and total mass caused by fuel burn.

The control laws and autopilots on modern aircraft don’t need to worry about the curvature of the earth, as its effect on them is tiny, and is taken care of simply by the process of maintaining level flight. The nav systems absolutely do, however, as do the attitude and directional referencing systems, all of which have to take account of the spherical shape, and indeed rotation.

So your hesitancy to believe is not entirely misplaced - many avionics do take account of the earths shape, it’s just not that important in the context of level flight.